[Tom Bishop]

In Earth Not a Globe the sun is a projection upon the atmosphere/atmoplane.

An illustration of the projection from the above work:



If the sun is a projection upon the atmosphere, might that provide some insight to how the sun sets?

What happens to the view in the far distance? The atmosphere eventually builds up to a point where you cannot see past. One cannot see for infinity. The atmosphere is comprised of opaque atoms and molecules, and is not perfectly transparent.

Here is a picture Bobby provided, showing that the opacity of the atmosphere changes over time, and can change the height of the horizon line.


(Click for Bigger)

In the distance the horizon eventually meets the thick atmosphere. Might the projection of the sun project onto that atmosphere in the distance, and eventually pass over the head of the observer?

[Bobby Shafto]

Here is a picture Bobby provided, showing that the opacity of the atmosphere changes over time, and can change the height of the horizon line.

Don't misinterpret that. I've been watching for weeks/months since and the horizon has never risen above that white line.

As fog moves in, those islands disappear and the "horizon" appears lower/closer. But on the clearest days (so far) the horizon becomes sharper at the level of the white line, but has never risen any higher.

This suggests to me that that white line is the "true" horizon and when it appears lower due to hazy atmospheric conditions, then I'm looking at an "apparent" horizon.

So, I don't think my observation/images lend themselves well to the point you are hoping to make in this topic.

[Tom Bishop]

The white line might be about the highest it gets. I have no reason to doubt that. But even the clear days must have a standard opacity to the atmosphere that builds up in the distance. Clear days only mean that the atmosphere reflects standard atmosphere conditions.

Edit:

Sunset on Foggy Day

I wanted to look at how the sunset occurs on foggy days and found the following interesting:

https://www.videoblocks.com/video/hazy-sunset-as-fog-blankets-jakarta-skyline-timelapse-jakarta-city-indonesia-f68drlq

The sun seems to just set into mid-sky.

What does this mean?

My interpretation is that, indeed, the sun is sensitive to the opacity of the atmosphere. When the opacity builds up close to the observer the sunset occurs above the horizon. When the opacity builds up far from the observer the sunset occurs closer to the horizon.

[Rama Set]

What is “opacity close to the observer”?

[QED]

In Earth Not a Globe the sun is a projection upon the atmosphere/atmoplane.

An illustration of the projection from the above work:



If the sun is a projection upon the atmosphere, might that provide some insight to how the sun sets?

What happens to the view in the far distance? The atmosphere eventually builds up to a point where you cannot see past. One cannot see for infinity. The atmosphere is comprised of opaque atoms and molecules, and is not perfectly transparent.

Here is a picture Bobby provided, showing that the opacity of the atmosphere changes over time, and can change the height of the horizon line.


(Click for Bigger)

In the distance the horizon eventually meets the thick atmosphere. Might the projection of the sun project onto that atmosphere in the distance, and eventually pass over the head of the observer?

So the opacity of the atmosphere is a known quantity, and permits viewing (in clear conditions) of about 50 miles. There is some give and take, it depends on temperature and density and particulates, etc. But 50 miles is a good conservative value easily realizable in conditions all over the Earth.

So if I'm on the beach, how come I can't see ships that are 50 miles at sea, Thomas? How come I can only see them when they come to about 3 miles or so?

[HorstFue]

In Earth Not a Globe the sun is a projection upon the atmosphere/atmoplane.

An illustration of the projection from the above work:



If the sun is a projection upon the atmosphere, might that provide some insight to how the sun sets?

1) I cannot follow Mr. R. in his claim, that the sun would appear bigger, if you insert a projection plane between the sun and the observer. The projection on the plane is bigger, yes, but distorted to an ellipse. The angled view of the observer will compensate this, and the observer will see the same image as without that additional projection plane.
2) If there is a projection plane, why is it invisible and only the sun gets "projected"? There should be some haze or similar to be seen not only for the disk of the sun. But in clear nights we see the twinkle of the stars and not a foggy image. With best viewing conditions, we see a crisp clear disk of the sun, until it intersects with the horizon.

What happens to the view in the far distance? The atmosphere eventually builds up to a point where you cannot see past. One cannot see for infinity. The atmosphere is comprised of opaque atoms and molecules, and is not perfectly transparent.

In the far distance on a flat earth, yes the haze of the atmosphere will accumulate more and more, until atmosphere is opaque. On a flat earth the line of sight would always go through the lower parts of the atmosphere, were the atmosphere is denser.
But on a globe earth, the viewing line to the sun, would soon go through the higher parts of the atmosphere, as the lower parts of atmosphere are curved down, away from the viewing line, following earth curvature. And the higher parts of atmosphere by far are less dense or opaque than the lower parts. 

[AATW]

In Earth Not a Globe the sun is a projection upon the atmosphere/atmoplane.

What the hell does that even mean?
How do you project something on to the atmosphere?

[BigGuyWhoKills]

In Earth Not a Globe the sun is a projection upon the atmosphere/atmoplane.

What the hell does that even mean?
How do you project something on to the atmosphere?

I would like to expound on your line of reasoning:

• How does a projection return the amount of energy that we experience?
• What is the projected surface made out of that it can reflect that much energy?
• Why can we not detect something that can return that much energy?

[Tom Bishop]

We don't actually receive that much energy from the sun on earth. The sun's energy is just multiplied by the inverse squared law and Round Earth distances to get the strength of the RE sun.

[BigGuyWhoKills]

We don't actually receive that much energy from the sun on earth. The sun's energy is just multiplied by the inverse squared law and Round Earth distances to get the strength of the RE sun.

I disagree.  Let's call it a 32 mile diameter disc 3,000 miles above the Earth.  All (most) light and heat comes from that source.  That sources illuminates and heats approximately 98.45 million square miles of land.  Granted, the light and heat attenuate towards the edges of the illuminated area, but it is still an AMAZING amount of energy.  Considering it comes from an area that some FE'ers believe to be 32 miles in diameter, that makes an energy density that confounds modern material science.  This is not my area of expertise, but I don't feel out of place saying there is nothing in existence that would work as a reflector for that amount of energy.

[iamcpc]

Here is a picture Bobby provided, showing that the opacity of the atmosphere changes over time, and can change the height of the horizon line.

Don't misinterpret that. I've been watching for weeks/months since and the horizon has never risen above that white line.

As fog moves in, those islands disappear and the "horizon" appears lower/closer. But on the clearest days (so far) the horizon becomes sharper at the level of the white line, but has never risen any higher.

This suggests to me that that white line is the "true" horizon and when it appears lower due to hazy atmospheric conditions, then I'm looking at an "apparent" horizon.

So, I don't think my observation/images lend themselves well to the point you are hoping to make in this topic.

How do you figure? in the round earth the sun is disappearing over the horizon out of view. This is explained by the rotation of a spherical earth.

Tom is making the point that, based off of the pictures you took, things like atmospheric refraction can also cause the disappearance of objects over the horizon out of view in a relatively flat area.

Whatever has caused the bottom of those mountains to disappear over the horizon might also, on a larger scale, account for the sunsets we have all seen with the horizon cutting the sun in half without the earth having to be a sphere.

[Tom Bishop]

We don't actually receive that much energy from the sun on earth. The sun's energy is just multiplied by the inverse squared law and Round Earth distances to get the strength of the RE sun.

I disagree.  Let's call it a 32 mile diameter disc 3,000 miles above the Earth.  All (most) light and heat comes from that source.  That sources illuminates and heats approximately 98.45 million square miles of land.  Granted, the light and heat attenuate towards the edges of the illuminated area, but it is still an AMAZING amount of energy.  Considering it comes from an area that some FE'ers believe to be 32 miles in diameter, that makes an energy density that confounds modern material science.  This is not my area of expertise, but I don't feel out of place saying there is nothing in existence that would work as a reflector for that amount of energy.

Start your own thread about that. I can only assume that you are accepting that sunset is possible since you are trying to move on to another topic.

[BigGuyWhoKills]

We don't actually receive that much energy from the sun on earth. The sun's energy is just multiplied by the inverse squared law and Round Earth distances to get the strength of the RE sun.

I disagree.  Let's call it a 32 mile diameter disc 3,000 miles above the Earth.  All (most) light and heat comes from that source.  That sources illuminates and heats approximately 98.45 million square miles of land.  Granted, the light and heat attenuate towards the edges of the illuminated area, but it is still an AMAZING amount of energy.  Considering it comes from an area that some FE'ers believe to be 32 miles in diameter, that makes an energy density that confounds modern material science.  This is not my area of expertise, but I don't feel out of place saying there is nothing in existence that would work as a reflector for that amount of energy.

Start your own thread about that. I can only assume that you are accepting that sunset is possible since you are trying to move on to another topic.

I'm not trying to move on to another topic.  I'd describing how it would be impossible for the sun to be a projection.  We receive a LOT of heat and light from that 32 arcminute circle in the sky.  If that is a projection, reflecting light and heat from an emitter somewhere else, this reflector is handling a LOT of energy.  It would be curious for a reflector like that to be undetectable to us.

[Tom Bishop]

We don't actually receive that much energy from the sun on earth. The sun's energy is just multiplied by the inverse squared law and Round Earth distances to get the strength of the RE sun.

I disagree.  Let's call it a 32 mile diameter disc 3,000 miles above the Earth.  All (most) light and heat comes from that source.  That sources illuminates and heats approximately 98.45 million square miles of land.  Granted, the light and heat attenuate towards the edges of the illuminated area, but it is still an AMAZING amount of energy.  Considering it comes from an area that some FE'ers believe to be 32 miles in diameter, that makes an energy density that confounds modern material science.  This is not my area of expertise, but I don't feel out of place saying there is nothing in existence that would work as a reflector for that amount of energy.

Start your own thread about that. I can only assume that you are accepting that sunset is possible since you are trying to move on to another topic.

I'm not trying to move on to another topic.  I'd describing how it would be impossible for the sun to be a projection.  We receive a LOT of heat and light from that 32 arcminute circle in the sky.  If that is a projection, reflecting light and heat from an emitter somewhere else, this reflector is handling a LOT of energy.  It would be curious for a reflector like that to be undetectable to us.

The energy of the sun in RET was derived by the inverse square law: http://www.ucolick.org/~bolte/AY4_04/class3_04bwb.pdf

The sun in FET would be of substantially less energy.

First slide from that article:

[BigGuyWhoKills]

We don't actually receive that much energy from the sun on earth. The sun's energy is just multiplied by the inverse squared law and Round Earth distances to get the strength of the RE sun.

I disagree.  Let's call it a 32 mile diameter disc 3,000 miles above the Earth.  All (most) light and heat comes from that source.  That sources illuminates and heats approximately 98.45 million square miles of land.  Granted, the light and heat attenuate towards the edges of the illuminated area, but it is still an AMAZING amount of energy.  Considering it comes from an area that some FE'ers believe to be 32 miles in diameter, that makes an energy density that confounds modern material science.  This is not my area of expertise, but I don't feel out of place saying there is nothing in existence that would work as a reflector for that amount of energy.

Start your own thread about that. I can only assume that you are accepting that sunset is possible since you are trying to move on to another topic.

I'm not trying to move on to another topic.  I'd describing how it would be impossible for the sun to be a projection.  We receive a LOT of heat and light from that 32 arcminute circle in the sky.  If that is a projection, reflecting light and heat from an emitter somewhere else, this reflector is handling a LOT of energy.  It would be curious for a reflector like that to be undetectable to us.

The energy of the sun in RET was derived by the inverse square law: http://www.ucolick.org/~bolte/AY4_04/class3_04bwb.pdf

The sun in FET would be of substantially less energy.

I get it.  But I'm not claiming that this 32 mile wide reflector is handling 3.846×1026 watts.  I am instead working the power from the receiving side.

We measure a maximum of about 1,000 watts per square meter at the surface of the Earth.  The Earth has a cross-sectional area of 128,000,000,000,000 square meters.  That means we receive approximately 128,000,000,000,000,000 watts of energy

That energy originates from an area of just 804 square miles.  This gives a density of 159,200,000,000,000 watts per square mile.  That breaks down to 30,152,268,960 watts per square foot.  Tom, that's quite the reflector.  In fact, I would say it falls into the realm of the supernatural.

If I made a mistake in my calculations, please show me where.  I sometimes shift a decimal point on accident.  But 30 terrawatts per square foot is more energy handling capacity than any material I've heard of.  And it definitely disproves any projection theory.

[Tom Bishop]

We don't actually receive that much energy from the sun on earth. The sun's energy is just multiplied by the inverse squared law and Round Earth distances to get the strength of the RE sun.

I disagree.  Let's call it a 32 mile diameter disc 3,000 miles above the Earth.  All (most) light and heat comes from that source.  That sources illuminates and heats approximately 98.45 million square miles of land.  Granted, the light and heat attenuate towards the edges of the illuminated area, but it is still an AMAZING amount of energy.  Considering it comes from an area that some FE'ers believe to be 32 miles in diameter, that makes an energy density that confounds modern material science.  This is not my area of expertise, but I don't feel out of place saying there is nothing in existence that would work as a reflector for that amount of energy.

Start your own thread about that. I can only assume that you are accepting that sunset is possible since you are trying to move on to another topic.

I'm not trying to move on to another topic.  I'd describing how it would be impossible for the sun to be a projection.  We receive a LOT of heat and light from that 32 arcminute circle in the sky.  If that is a projection, reflecting light and heat from an emitter somewhere else, this reflector is handling a LOT of energy.  It would be curious for a reflector like that to be undetectable to us.

The energy of the sun in RET was derived by the inverse square law: http://www.ucolick.org/~bolte/AY4_04/class3_04bwb.pdf

The sun in FET would be of substantially less energy.

I get it.  But I'm not claiming that this 32 mile wide reflector is handling 3.846×1026 watts.  I am instead working the power from the receiving side.

We measure a maximum of about 1,000 watts per square meter at the surface of the Earth.  The Earth has a cross-sectional area of 128,000,000,000,000 square meters.  That means we receive approximately 128,000,000,000,000,000 watts of energy

That energy originates from an area of just 804 square miles.  This gives a density of 159,200,000,000,000 watts per square mile.  That breaks down to 30,152,268,960 watts per square foot.  Tom, that's quite the reflector.  In fact, I would say it falls into the realm of the supernatural.

If I made a mistake in my calculations, please show me where.  I sometimes shift a decimal point on accident.  But 30 terrawatts per square foot is more energy handling capacity than any material I've heard of.  And it definitely disproves any projection theory.

The sunlight doesn't shine evenly over the earth. When the sunlight is angled one square foot of sunlight covers more than one square foot of earth.

[BigGuyWhoKills]

The sunlight doesn't shine evenly over the earth. When the sunlight is angled one square foot of sunlight covers more than one square foot of earth.

Yeah, I didn't want to do the calculus on that gradient, so instead of using half the surface area of the globe, I used the cross-sectional area at the equator (1.28×10^14 square meters).

If that was your only concern, I think that my numbers are correct.

[totallackey]

We don't actually receive that much energy from the sun on earth. The sun's energy is just multiplied by the inverse squared law and Round Earth distances to get the strength of the RE sun.

... I don't feel out of place saying there is nothing in existence that would work as a reflector for that amount of energy.

And I have no reason why you should not feel entirely out of place in writing such a statement given you have provided absolutely nothing to support it except an argument from incredulity.

[BigGuyWhoKills]

We don't actually receive that much energy from the sun on earth. The sun's energy is just multiplied by the inverse squared law and Round Earth distances to get the strength of the RE sun.

... I don't feel out of place saying there is nothing in existence that would work as a reflector for that amount of energy.

And I have no reason why you should not feel entirely out of place in writing such a statement given you have provided absolutely nothing to support it except an argument from incredulity.

Nothing to support my statement?  I calculated the energy density to be 30,152,268,960 watts per square foot.  The only incredulity is that someone would expect any material to handle that much energy.  The power consumption of iron smelting furnaces is measured in kilowatts per ton (http://www.electroheatinduction.com/how-to-calculate-electricity-cost-for-melting-metal-in-induction-melting-furnace/).  Not megawatts, and definitely not gigawatts.  With this new information, does my incredulity seem reasonable now?

[AATW]

We don't actually receive that much energy from the sun on earth.

Well, that’s an interesting claim.
Do carry on, what is your basis for saying that?